David: So Matt, you and I are the resident reviewers of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” aka the resident masochists of the review staff (don’t forget to talk about this on Twitter under the hashtag #TWDmasochism for all you Talking Dead folks). In its best moments, the show is exciting in a dumb way and decent overall, but for the most part, its characters are maddening and conversations are circular and terribly inorganic. In short, we don’t love it, but we watch it because the connection to the far better comic book.
Today came news that there is a spin-off show coming on AMC with all-new characters that have no connection to the comics. To you as both a soon-to-be lapsed viewer and current reader, how do you feel about that? What was your gut reaction?
Matthew: Ha! Well. A spin-off show, to me, just sort of screams as AMC’s own admittance that they burned too bright too quick. Because, look — when AMC first launched their original programming, we had Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two of the most critically celebrated and award winning shows on television. But none of their latter shows have caught the same traction — Rubicon was cancelled, The Killing is reviled and was cancelled (and then they changed their minds), no one cares about Hell on Wheels, Low Winter Sun has to follow the single most impossible act to follow on television and outside of that it is abysmal reality programming.
What else do they have? The Walking Dead, the single highest rated show on cable television. So of course, with one major show ending and another heading towards its last season they’re going to spin-off the one that’s still going. How else are they going to keep people around?
My gut reaction was, and is: oh, whatever. Good luck, AMC!
David: Don’t forget, they just canceled The Killing again!
My gut reaction was that AMC is changing their goals, a bit. Granted, Breaking Bad has had a highly rated final season, but everything about TWD has been a gigantic success. It’s such a highly rated show that it actually compares more closely to network television than it does anything AMC, and it’s a massive, meteoric success. However, it’s a mixed bag from a review standpoint and hardly something that fits into their brand of being where the best television lies. Choosing to create another show that exists in this universe effectively is them saying “ratings yes, quality…maybe,” and it in a weird way is a strange embrace of comic like storytelling. What if they run these back-to-back and have crossovers? Or is it just a way to have their ratings lifted year round?
To me though, my main question is, isn’t this redundant as all hell? What are they going to do different here? Is there any way that this is narrative driven rather than ratings driven?
Matthew: Historically I think it makes sense just fine. I mean, I think the prime example of something like this working is Buffy and Angel, right? I don’t know how much of either you watched, but in many ways they were the same shows at heart but with different executions that did in fact offer up crossover potential.
Obviously those shows are much more easily intertwined, but genre television does have a history of making it work and making it work well — and on separate networks to boot! And ABC is going to give it a go with Once Upon A Time and Wonderland, so it’s not even something that no one else is doing. Plus: Saul Goodman (of Breaking Bad) is getting his own show soon, so it’s not even that weird for AMC.
But, that said, spinning off Angel from Buffy makes a lot more sense because we knew Angel, and same with Once. This? This is AMC doing it for ratings, which is why we’ll have The Walking Dead and The Walking Dead: Miami. Since we’re following brand new characters, there’s no other thing connecting these two shows other than they both have zombies, so it’s like saying Shaun of the Dead happens the same night Night of the Living Dead takes place.
Continued belowI mean, I “get it.” I’m sure you do too. The success of The Walking Dead is unparalleled from a ratings standpoint, and people if not critics love it. I just don’t see this as them having too big of a story to be contained within one show, because come on, it’s just zombies and people surviving zombies. Who is the other show going to star? Negan?
David: I’m not going to lie, I would ABSOLUTELY watch the show if it starred Negan. I love that guy, even though he is really, really horrible. A look into his world would be really messed up, so if it made it to TV, it’d have to be so neutered it wouldn’t even matter. But THAT would be interesting.
Who is it going to star though? Definitely not him, but I imagine what they’ll probably do is boil TWD Prime down to its most successful details. Everyone LOVES Daryl. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if we got some sort of anti-hero with a heart of gold type lead, trying to be a loner but continuing to get brought back into the fray because he’s protecting a family he’s taken under his wing. I think they’ll try to do things just different enough to not be completely redundant while still focusing on the elements that they perceive to work. Of course, that may just be me, as I’ve always wanted the show to just be Daryl rolling out on his hog killing walkers.
I know the idea of a spin-off isn’t new though, but as you said, there isn’t any real narrative connection here, and from what I’ve read it just happens to exist in the same world. It’s effectively choosing to have the exact same show twice because you know people love it. Those other examples spun out of other narratives and/or featured characters from the show. The “The Walking Dead: Miami” reference you made was spot-on. That’s the closest connection there is, and it’s an opportunistic and smart choice from a business standpoint, but not something driven by the desire for quality.
Here’s the weirdest thing for me Matt: famously, the second season took place entirely on the Farm because of budget constraints, and I’ve read that this was a big factor in terms of why they stayed at the Prison after season three (you know, sets were already built and what not). Besides obviously dolla dolla bills, why would you bring another version of a show to life when nearly all reports say it is prohibitively expensive for them to run, and what could that mean for this new show?
Matthew: Well, I think the fair bet is that this situation has changed. I mean, what was the number for The Walking Dead in terms of ratings? 12.4 million? Breaking Bad isn’t even hitting half that, and I don’t think there is any question what is the better show. Besides, if they just throw all of the cast out into the woods or something, that’ll certainly keep the cost down.
It’s the same premise, but it’s a completely new show. Actors they can pay less, no direction they have to adhere to… the sky is the limit right now. I suppose it’s a bit hard to tell without knowing anything about the show, but AMC’s line-up is freeing up. They’re going to have the money to devote to something like this.
Even if, for the record, I think we’d both really rather they didn’t. Not even on a “I don’t want to see a spin-off of a show that’s really dull” way, but I’d just rather AMC take a shot and find new, original programming that actually deserves the spot it’s going to fill.
David: Yeah. I am in no way saying this doesn’t have the potential to be good and/or very watchable, but it seems very contrary to their efforts as a network to do such a thing. You could say they’re doing just that with Better Call Saul, but let’s be honest, spinning off Breaking Bad is a whole different story than TWD.
I hope this ends up being dynamite, because frankly I’m a mark for zombie based narratives. I hope it’s what I want TWD Prime to be. But I’m skeptical on every level of this, and it feels like one of the Big Two publishers expanding a successful book’s line strictly because it’s successful, not because it’s any good. And isn’t that kind of contrary to everything Kirkman, one of the new show’s producers, has always been all about?
Continued belowMatthew: No, this isn’t out of Kirkman’s realm. He’s done spin-offs for his comics for years, and always found a way to tie it together. That’s why you have “Brit, “Tech Jacket,” “Capes,” “Astounding Wolf-Man” — and now? “Invincible Universe.” So, I mean, I get that.
Honestly, even if it is dynamite, I still think it’s kind of idealistic and vapid. If anything, I think it’s rather indicative of why television used to get such a bad rep: because networks make decisions that are otherwise asinine. (That’s why reality TV exists, right?) And you’re right to compare it to the Big Two, because this is a million “Deadpool” minis; something has a little success, so rather than try and do something to capture the same magic, they just recreate knock-offs to appease the masses that just otherwise don’t care.
And I suppose I should note: I don’t want Better Call Saul either. I LOVE Breaking Bad, but I’m fine with it being left well enough alone. I’ll watch it because Bob Odenkirk makes me laugh and I’ve been an eternal fan of his since Mr. Show, but I’d be disingenuous if I didn’t say that there’s probably something better to do.
There’s this fear, particularly prevalent in television when you watch what the networks do, that it is better to keep churning out the same old crap rather than actually try. This is why Community and Happy Endings get canned and Two and a Half Men is about to air it’s eleventh season. And now: The Other Walking Dead.
David: I really hope this is ten seasons of a zombie Bob Saget explaining to his zombie children how he became a zombie, and it’s them just running syndicated episodes of How I Met Your Mother with new credits for How I Became a Zombie and the last season of meeting the mother being replaced with the zombie apocalypse striking New York City and Ted getting turned by a Neil Patrick Harris who is screaming “ZOMBIE UP!”
Anything else to add about our new next favorite show?
Matthew: I — wow. Nope. I got nothing to follow that. Can’t wait for How I Met Your Zombie.
Wait. Can we use the Zed Word?
